Is EU’s stand on settlements a carrot or a stick?

This post is part of Marc H. Ellis’s “Exile and the Prophetic” feature for Mondoweiss. To read the entire series visit the archive page.

Usually when an American Secretary of State is in the Middle East trying to broker peace between Israelis and Palestinians, the Israeli government announces new settlement housing in Jerusalem and the West Bank. This time the European Union made its own announcement, seemingly from the opposite direction.

With John Kerry in Jordan meeting with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, the European Union announced new stringent anti-occupation guidelines for future agreements with a variety of entities in the state of Israel.

Though complicated and still to be analyzed, the EU is turning its back on Israel in the occupied territories in concrete ways. This involves banning the financing of and cooperation with Israeli institutions that operate in land Israel seized during the 1967 war. Starting next year, Israel will have to sign on the dotted line that Israeli entities in relation to the EU have nothing to do with directly or indirectly with the Palestinians territories. This is tantamount to Israel officially affirming that the Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem, are not part of Israel.

Though this seems an obvious and long overdue step, the EU’s action is being greeted as huge news by various players in the region. Predictably, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is up in arms.

As always there are caveats. The guidelines apply only to agreements with the EU as an entity; the EU’s member states can do what they want. However, the EU will recommend that its member states adopt the same guidelines. Reports are that a number of states within the EU will adopt the guidelines.

Reading the guidelines, it’s clear this is a serious effort. The handwriting on Israel’s wall is becoming bolder and more restrictive. According to Israel’s governing ideology, the EU’s new guidelines are strident.

The guidelines, which condition all future agreements on Jerusalem’s acknowledgement that its occupied territories are not part of Israel, have strained relations with the EU to unprecedented level.

The full text of the guidelines obtained by Haaretz states that any Israeli entity that wants to receive funding, participate in a project or apply for grants or prizes from EU foundations or institutions will have to submit such a declaration.

The guidelines also state that “only Israeli entities having their place of establishment within Israel’s pre-1967 borders will be considered eligible” for consideration.”

The place of establishment “is understood to be the legal address where the entity is registered, as confirmed by a precise postal address corresponding to a concrete physical location. The use of a post office box is not allowed.”

Has the EU gone far enough? Annie Robbins reports Omar Barghouti’s response to the new guidelines:

Given the EU’s profound complicity at all levels in maintaining Israel’s regime of occupation, colonization and apartheid, these guidelines constitute a bare minimal step in the right direction that may open the door to more effective boycotts against Israel in the future. We welcome them, but we also must soberly remind the European establishment that it is obliged, morally and legally, to do much more on the ground to atone for its role in Israel’s crimes against the Palestinian people.

Echoing Barghouti but from the other side of the coin, the New York Times reports that Shlomo Ben-Ami, former Israeli foreign minister, sees the European move as a “good sign.” His reasoning is as follows: Since the EU distinguishes between pre-1967 Israel and the Palestinians territories, the guidelines don’t punish Israel itself. In other words, Ben-Ami sees the handwriting on Israel’s wall and thinks Israel should breathe a sigh of relief. At least the EU isn’t boycotting Israel as a whole.

No doubt the EU’s agreement is important. With Secretary Kerry in the Middle East, the news of the guidelines is amplified. Though serious and important, however, Barghouti’s issue remains. Do the EU guidelines dovetail with Kerry announcing the disappearance of the Two State solution – as Israel expands at the expense of Palestine? The EU guidelines could stretch out negotiations between the parties, muddy the waters and pressure Israel but not enough to force Israel’s withdrawal to the 1967 borders.

Ben-Ami’s glass half-full is the EU recognizing Israel’s 1967 borders as the limits of its actions. Is he right?

Though one hardly would expect Europe to boycott Israel as a state, limiting its guidelines to the Palestinians territories may ultimately enable Israel to continue its occupation.

The EU has upped the ante. The cost of Israel’s occupation continues to grow. This is important. The stick – international opinion affecting Israel’s economy, education and beyond – worries Israel. But, then, John Kerry’s carrot, the major factor in the unfolding scenario, has just become more tempting for Israel.

Biting the carrot to avoid the stick, Israel might move – some. But we know that if the EU’s action help bring Palestinians and Israelis back to the negotiating table, two real states won’t be on the table.

The EU’s guidelines are real. In Israel/Palestine, will they prove to be a game changer or another palliative for those who hope that peace with justice is just around the corner?

About Marc H. Ellis

Marc H. Ellis is Professor of History and Jewish Studies and Director of the Center for the Study of the Global Prophetic. His latest book is Finding Our Voice: Embodying the Prophetic and Other Misadventures.

“What (are) Kerry doing there?”
What goes on in Syria and Lebanon, with big potential explosions, and what to do about Iran`s continuous move towards a nuke are important enough to justify that, aren`t they?

“Ben-Ami’s glass half-full is the EU recognizing Israel’s 1967 borders as the limits of its actions. Is he right?”

This glass analogy is useless. A more interesting distinction is between those in the “liberal Zionist” camp who all claim to support a 2SS but react to this in two very different ways. Ben-Ami probably genuinely wants a 2SS on the 67 borders, so he reacts in a mild way. Those who really don’t want the 67 borders, and just want to see continued expansion with the “peace process” as cover find this very upsetting. If you look at the NYT story (which is a fascinating piece in many ways), you’ll find Israeli officials whining about it. One unnamed person claimed the Europeans were “undermining” the American peace process and goes on to say “Why would any Palestinian leader agree to re-engage if they can get what they want without negotiating? Why enter the give and take of negotiations when you can just take what is offered by international bodies?”

In other words, the Israelis should be able to continue to take for themselves what they want, while the Palestinians “give” what the Israelis take, and whatever the Israelis don’t want that badly, the Palestinians will get. That’s what negotiations are for. No pesky notions of international law need interfere.

The specifics are, I believe, beside the point. Whether it is binding or not; applies only to the Israeli government and not private matters; applies to the member states or only to the EU matters little. The fact of the matter is that the zios need to use, as a shield, the slanderous lie that opposition to them is antisemitism or some other nonsense. Up until now, they’ve been able to get away with it, because the US government is a puppet to the AIPACers and their bosses in Tel Aviv and the EU was cowed by false claims of bigotry. Well, this policy undercuts the zios’ strategy by burying, for one and all, the libelous claim that opposition to israeli’s theft of Palestinian and Syrian land is antisemitic. They’ve attempted to win by putting their fat thumbs on the scales. Well, the EU is calling them on it. Good for Europe.

“Like it or not, Israel is not going to willingly divide Jerusalem short of war.”

Then it will have to be unwillingly.

Exactly. There will be no 2SS, let alone a 1SS, without massive pressure being brought on Israel to force abandonment of expansionary ethnic-supremacist ideology and practice.

Kerry says the only route to peace is “direct negotiations”. But there is NO WAY the Netanyahu administration, or any new administration in the offing, will make the concessions necessary for an achievable (let alone just!) 2SS.

Thus this latest chapter in the fraudulent “peace process” is bound to fail (which is Israel’s goal, of course.)

The only other possibility would be that the Palestinian leadership accepts a semi-sovereign constellation of bantustan-like enclaves as their “state”.

‘The boycott will not work. I suspect Europe needs Israeli produce and medicines more than Israel needs them.”….Konrad

Believe it or not I actually do get very tired of bashing Israel.
But every time I see these little hubristic and uninformed statements I cant help but reply.

The fact is the bulk of Israel’s commerical drug industry (Telva) is manufacturing ‘generics’ and Israel is the most sued country for ‘patent infringement” by the major French, German and the US drug companies. Look it up if you doubt this.
You’d get more respect and credit for what Isr has produced if you came down to earth and quit the silly bragging and making outlandish claims.

While it is correct to say that Israel classes Jerusalem as her capital city, this is not recognized by any country other than Israel and those nations enjoying diplomatic relations with Israel have their embassies in Tel Aviv.

All the big newspapers are published in Tel Aviv, all the banks are headquartered in Tel Aviv, and most of the large companies are headquartered in the Tel Aviv area. The stock market is in Tel Aviv as are the majority of the theater companies.

Under international law, neither East nor West Jerusalem is considered Israel’s capital. Tel Aviv is recognised as Israel’s capital, pending a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians.

East Jerusalem is considered by the international community to be illegally occupied by Israel, in contravention of several binding UN Security Council Resolutions.

In these resolutions, the United Nations Security Council has also called for no measures to be taken to change the status of Jerusalem until a final settlement is reached between the sides.

Declaring Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is an attempt to change this status, and is thus a violation of these Security Council resolutions and against international law.

Immediately after Israel invaded and occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in June 1967, the Palestinians offered to establish a demilitarized state if Israel would withdraw.

Israel refused and went on to colonize all occupied Arab lands, including to this day, Syria’s Golan Heights, as well as continued occupation of Lebanon’s Shebaa Farms.

The most extensive violator of Security Council resolutions is Israel.
Israel’s rejection of the Arab League land-for-peace formula put forward in Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 arguably puts Israel in violation of these resolutions, long seen as the basis for Middle East peace.

More clearly, Israel has defied Resolutions 267, 271 and 298, which demand that it rescind its annexation of greater East Jerusalem, as well as dozens of other resolutions insisting that Israel cease its violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention, such as deportations, demolition of homes, collective punishment and seizure of private property.

UN Security Council resolutions are well grounded in international law. Security Council Resolutions 446, 452 and 465 require that Israel evacuate all its illegal settlements on occupied Arab lands.

The Knesset can sit where it wants. Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel. Why? it’s all against international law. But then you knew that didn’t you?

Your absolutely right here, Mike. I’ve felt so much better since I gave up all the pills from quack outfits such as AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, Novartis, and Roche (the Swiss are the absolute worst) and switched to state-of-the-art Israeli generics. And unlike Bibi, I’ve dumped my Mercedes for a high-tech Israeli electric car.

The Isr eco. plan has always looked to me to be based on ‘fake it till you make it’ –reguarly interpersed with—-‘ Uncle Sam we’re broke rush us another 10 billion eco. loan package and Isr bond debt guarentee .’

“The place of establishment “is understood to be the legal address where the entity is registered, as confirmed by a precise postal address corresponding to a concrete physical location. The use of a post office box is not allowed.”
The Ahava Co has its HQ in Israel proper as do Soda Stream and many other Israeli companies,but have their production facilities mainly in occupied territories. According to the rules of origin of the World Trade Organization and the European Union the place where the last substantial change takes place is where it originates from, not its HQ or where it is shipped from. Fortunately this proviso should put the kibosh on any Israeli fraud “Any Israeli entity seeking funding from or cooperation with the European Union will have to submit a declaration stating that the entity has no direct or indirect links to the West Bank, East Jerusalem or the Golan Heights”. Most of Ahava cosmetics are manufactured in Mitzpe Shalem in Palestine, similarly 90 odd per cent of Soda Streams carbonating device is manufactured at Mishor Edomin, also in Palestine. This should put an end to Ahava’s EU funding for scientific research which draw enormous criticism from campaigners last year.

“My main objection to the EU’s attempts to get tough with Israel on settlements are that they being presented as an alternative to a boycott of Israeli goods and institutions. The Union’s envoy in Tel Aviv, Andrew Standley, stated categorically last month that a related move on labeling fruit and vegetables from Israeli settlements was not a boycott.

Not for the first time, the EU being out of sync with its citizens. Campaigns to shun Israel entirely — not just its settlements — are flourishing in many parts of Europe. Yet the best that the Brussels elite can come up with is an indication it “may” do something.”

Agree. Looks a small tremor not a quake. Just more paperwork for the Israelis to fake up to get the $$$$.
It will be a quake if they ever boycott Israel.

Just to add to my comment above, this link.. http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/01/israeli-companys-eu-funding-under.html proves that activists have to be very vigilant Ahava/DSL is involved in two other projects funded by Framework Programme 7, the main source of E.U. research funding. Last summer, research Commissioner Máire Geoghegan-Quinn responded to a query from the European Parliament about the company’s involvement in projects by saying that the company “is formally established within the borders of the internationally recognised State of Israel,” so that it meets the commission’s participation criteria. E.U. rules don’t stipulate that the research has to be carried out where the company is formally established, she added.

Jonathan Rosenhead, an emeritus professor of operational research at the London School of Economics who helped organize the letter, says he spoke with commission officials last year who were “clearly unaware” that the company had its operations in a settlement. “My guess and hope is that they tighten up their procedures” for the next major funding program, called Horizon 2020, which will start in 2014. A commission official says “the commission is currently scrutinizing options” to evaluate participants in Horizon 2020.

RE: “Since the EU distinguishes between pre-1967 Israel and the Palestinians territories, the guidelines don’t punish Israel itself. In other words, Ben-Ami sees the handwriting on Israel’s wall and thinks Israel should breathe a sigh of relief. At least the EU isn’t boycotting Israel as a whole.” ~ Marc Ellis

The EU just reminded Israel that those brown animals in the territories are actually people.

Chemi Shalyev has a good point in Ha’aretz

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/west-of-eden/.premium-1.536406#
“When the instinctive fury of perceived insult subsides, many Israelis will be left pondering the shattered illusion that right-wingers have been peddling by which Israel can continue expanding the settlements with impunity for as long as it wants. They will be reminded that despite settler claims to the contrary, most of them have never bought in to the equation settlements=Israel. And they will be wondering whether now is not a good time for Israel to quit, while it’s ahead. ”

“The latest EU guidelines make crystal-clear to anybody who has eyes to see and ears to hear that the international community has no intention whatsoever of accepting Israel’s creeping annexation of the West Bank. Netanyahu reacted predictably by saying that Israel will not accept “external edicts on our borders.” He hasn’t realized that the international community doesn’t accept Israel’s unilateral edicts on Palestine through land expropriation and settlement building, either. The question is whether Netanyahu will wake up in time to prevent Israel from sliding not only into deeper political isolation, but also into economic decline. ”

So Israel’s remaining lefties like it. But can they ever get back to Israel ? And what about all of those settlers?

jonah, have just read the screed from mad Mel, talk about selective quotes, when referencing the transfer of citizens in the fourth Geneva Convention 1949, she quotes only paragraph 1, of article 49, completely overlooking the relevant paragraph, 6. which reads “The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

Where’s the “forcibly” on the transfer part? Inducements and bribes persuade people to move into homes in stolen Palestine. The GoI is behind those special “benefits” which are deliberately designed to encourage “civilian” (wot a joke) settlement. Obviously therefore, planned transfer of population is involved.

Jonah, the article says transfer not forcibly transfer. By building settlements and encouraging its population to move into the occupied territories via financial incentives, Israel is in violation of article 49.

Well, let’s read again what Julius Stone wrote on this subject in 1980:
“That because of the ex iniuria principle, Jordan never had nor now has any legal title in the West Bank, nor does any other state even claim such title. Article 49 seems thus simply not applicable. (Even if it were, it may be added that the facts of recent voluntary settlements seem not to be caught by the intent of Article 49 which is rather directed at the forced transfer of the belligerent’s inhabitants to the occupied territory, or the displacement of the local inhabitants, for other than security reasons.) The Fourth Geneva Convention applies only, according to Article 2, to occupation of territory belonging to ‘another High Contracting Party’; and Jordan cannot show any such title to the West Bank, nor Egypt to Gaza.”.

Support to Stone’s assertion can be found in Lauterpacht’s writing in 1968:
“Thus Jordan’s occupation of the Old City-and indeed of the whole of the area west of the Jordan river-entirely lacked legal justification; and being defective in this way could not form any basis for Jordan validly to fill the sovereignty vacuum in the Old City [and whole of the area west of the Jordan River].”

And professor Rostow concludes that the Convention is not applicable to Israel’s legal position and notes:
“The opposition to Jewish settlements in the West Bank also relied on a legal argument – that such settlements violated the Fourth Geneva Convention forbidding the occupying power from transferring its own citizens into the occupied territories. How that Convention could apply to Jews who already had a legal right, protected by Article 80 of the United Nations Charter, to live in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, was never explained.”

Well, let’s read again what Julius Stone wrote on this subject in 1980:

“Article 49 seems thus simply not applicable.”

And let’s end it there. The ICJ threw that argument out.

Next….

As for Lauterpacht, his International Law Reports and advisory opinions confirmed the status of Palestine as a “third independent state” or separate “mandated state” with the same character of a “regular state”. He also held that a State becomes a person of international law solely and exclusively through recognition. See for example:

Well the UAE has no problem boycotting Israel. The US chasing it’s tail for Israel on the world stage is comical….no one except a small segment of Europe cares what the US says anymore about Israel or anything else…not the Arabs, not Russia, not South America or Africa or Asia. I dont know that world ever did really ‘care’…I think other countries followed our lead and let us be their world cop when they thought the US was doing or would do the right things… now that they see we’re not– we’re Zero to them. Good. Please ignore us.

London-UAE cable car pact excludes IsraelCity’s main transportation agency comes under fire for deal that forbids any future business dealings with the Jewish state
July 17, 2013, 1:45

JTA — London’s main transportation agency has come under fire for a deal with a United Arab Emirates-based company that excludes Israel from future business dealings.

Transport for London signed a 10-year partnership deal with Emirates Air Line on the Thames cable car, which opened in June 2012 ahead of the London Olympics.
According to the 2011 contract, which was revealed by the online watchdog group MayorWatch through a Freedom of Information request, Transport for London agreed to abide by the UAE’s foreign policy in the deal.

Under the terms of the contract, Transport for London will default on the agreement if it sells the cable car to a “conflicting person,” defined as any competitor or “any person who is a national of, or who is registered, incorporated, established or whose principal place of business is in a country with which the UAE does not at the date of this Contract or at any relevant point during the Term maintain diplomatic relations.”
Israel is the only country that falls into that category.

Transport for London would not be allowed to finance the project through Israel-based or Israeli-owned banks, nor would Israel be able to buy the cable cars from Transport for London. Emirates Air Line is providing $ 54.4 million of the project’s more than $95 million construction and development costs.

“This story raises serious concerns, yet we are confident that the relevant British authorities will know how to deal with it,” Amir Ofek, spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in London, told HuffPost UK.

Paul Charney, chair of the United Kingdom’s Zionist Federation, in a statement said the exclusion condition “sets a dangerous precedent, effectively allowing UAE money to dictate government policy through commercial contracts.”

“I call on Transport for London to urgently discuss this matter with foreign and trade ministers and reconsider this agreement before any lasting damage is done.”

Zionists should have picked Antarctica, a land without any re-existing human cultures. Then they could have built the “Cool place for Jews” without tarring the enterprise with the dispicable European colonial brush.

Sounds like the ’70s Arab Boycott redux, only this time the world’s patience with Israel is running thin and there is more global receptiveness to this kind of either/or contractual positioning. It’s still illegal in the US though, f0r firms doing business in the US, as far as I know.

Meanwhile, Kerry is over in Israel again, for the sixth time in as many months. He’s a laughing stock everywhere in the world except the USA. They were laughing about it on Imus In The Morning moments ago. Their regular sports announcer, who is Jewish, is also in Israel now. Imus himself said he’s known the sports announcer for forty years, and he’s a great guy–just insane, peculiar “in a nice way.” He then talked about the guy going over to Israel (apparently) in the past, and doing crazy stuff to “kill Hitler.”

Kate pointed out yesterday on MW, linking to an article, that Kerry has threatened Abbas with cutting off all US aid if Abbas won’t sit down with Israel unconditionally.
Our latest “honest broker” is just like all the rest. Israel’s continued settlement expansion is also a condition to sitting down with PA, but Kerry would never threaten Israel with cutting of US aid unless it at least suspends said expansion.

“For our part, we approached a number of [European] Union officials, in the [Palestinian] Authority and also in Israel, to try and prevent the decision or at least to keep it unofficial,” said the official, who declined to give his name. “It’s not just Israeli companies that are going to be hit economically, it’s also going to be disastrous economically and socially for the Palestinian community.”

Ben Gurion, who oversaw the ethnic cleansing of the Israeli State proper, disagreed with taking over the West Bank. By limiting the restriction to illegal settlements in the West Bank, the EU does the Israelis a favor that is in line with Jstreet’s opposition to settlements as a major obstacle to the 2SS.

By limiting the restriction to illegal settlements in the West Bank, the EU does the Israelis a favor that is in line with Jstreet’s opposition to settlements as a major obstacle to the 2SS.
I agree with you and Omar Barghouti.

First, Palestinians are one of the biggest refugee populations in the world. If protest is limited to the settlements and enforcing JStreet’s 2SS, it does not address the refugee status and rejection from their homeland. The displacement you refer to is the fact that Palestinians have been displaced from that territory since 1947.

What is the EU doing to foster a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians? Nothing. They encourage the Palestinians to pursue an intransigent, uncompromising position. Israel will find other markets. Palestinian co- workers will suffer. The EU will fall victim to the Muslim demographic timebomb. The Jews are leaving Europe in droves to escape Muslim anti-semitism. Throughout history whenever the Jews are forced out the country sinks into the economic doldrums.

RE: ” Throughout history whenever the Jews are forced out the country sinks into the economic doldrums.”
You are trying to sell a version of the trickle-down theory. One with a Jewish twist.
It does not even work in Israel, the OECD member with the highest income/wealth gap.

I guess you think Wall Street is a net plus for America, not the bane it actually is for Dick and Jane. And I guess you don’t like Warren’s bill to reinstate Glass-Seagall’s wall between commercial and investment banking?

@sean – – Look at Castile and Aragon. United into Spain at same time as Jews were expelled or forced to convert (or pretend to convert). Days of greatest wealth and power came later. (But, much of exploration etc in New World was financed by “Christians” who often were actually Jews pretending to be Christians).

But we know that if the EU’s action help bring Palestinians and Israelis back to the negotiating table, two real states won’t be on the table.

Yep. There is no point for negotiations now, nor in the near-medium future (unless the Palestinians are willing to accept far, far less than a “real state”).

Palestinians will have to continue suffering and resisting for quite a while longer, until enough pressure is put on Israel to *force* a reasonable (not entirely just, of course) settlement, if that ever happens.

Support Mondoweiss’s independent journalism today

Mondoweiss brings you the news that no one else will. Your tax-deductible donation enables us to deliver information, analysis and voices stifled elsewhere. Please give now to maintain and grow this unique resource.